On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/04/2014 07:37 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 03/04/2014 06:43 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: >> >>>> If I understand the situation correctly it's like ACPI does not have named >>>> GPIOs so keeping specifying this in DT GPIO bindings is counter-productive >>>> to the work of abstracting the access to GPIO handlers so that drivers >>>> need not know whether ACPI or DT is used for describing the hardware. >>> >>> For devices that already have both ACPI and DT bindings, we can't >>> pretend they can be the same; they are already potentially different. We >>> simply need to parse DT and ACPI differently, since that's the sway >>> their bindings are defined. >>> >>> For any devices that don't have both ACPI and DT bindings, I agree we >>> should certainly strive to make any new bindings aligned so we don't >>> have to deal with this for them. >>> >>> However, we can't change the past. >> >> Yeah, right, so for this very driver there are no bindings defined (yet) >> and the only device tree I can find referencing it is the Tegra20-paz00 >> and it just use gpios = <>; >> >> So in this case I think this patch is the right way forward, but I admit >> I'm really uncertain in the general case. > > If there are no bindings defined at all yet, then we can define both DT > and ACPI bindings to use name-based GPIOs. Index-based lookups aren't a > good way forward. After Mark clarifying that ACPI is going to have named GPIOs I'm totally aligned on this, so OK! Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
